ArticlePDF Available

What, if anything, is a lyrula?

Authors:
  • Saint Petersburg State University & University of Vienna

Abstract and Figures

Although the lyrula is a character trait that is often used in taxonomic descriptions of certain ascophoran bryozoan taxa, its function as well as its position relative to the operculum remained ill-defined ever since the term was introduced in the late 19th century. The presence of a variety of other orificial and peristomial structures of different shape and position has added to the terminological confusion. Here we show that, in contrast to the condyles that are positioned at the (disto)lateral orifice margins below the level of the operculum, all structures at the proximal margin are situated above the operculum, and that they all serve the same ultimate function: to partition the orifice and peristome into a distal part that is occupied by the tentacles, and a proximal part through which water can freely flow into and out of the ascus during tentacle protrusion and retraction, respectively. Finally, we provide amended definitions of the terms lyrula, central and lateral denticle, as well as peristomial groove and ridge.
Content may be subject to copyright.
21Studi Trent. Sci. Nat., 94 (2014): 21-28
1. INTRODUCTION
It is astonishing to note that, after over 200 years of
serious scientic studies on cheilostome bryozoans, there
are still prominent structures in the skeleton and polypi-
de whose function(s) remain poorly understood or even
unknown. This applies to, for instance, the papillae in
some Cribrilinidae, spicules in Thalamoporellidae, opercu-
lar glands, at least some types of avicularia (e.g. the small
suboral or peristomial ones), or, as a prominent structure
in the orice, the lyrula, which is the focus of the present
paper.
In addition to its use in species-level distinctions and
descriptions of the orice in certain ascophoran bryozoans
the lyrula is also a trait employed in higher-level systema-
tics. The typical anvil-shaped lyrula (Fig. 1) characterises
the umbonulomorph family Escharellidae and the lepralio-
morph superfamily Smittinoidea (cf. Hayward & Ryland
1999), the latter also including taxa with umbonuloid fron-
tal shields. Its presence in these and other remotely related
taxa suggests that the lyrula has evolved independently se-
veral times. Besides the typical anvil-shaped lyrula, other
differently shaped structures at the proximal orice and
peristomial margin that are usually termed denticle, mucro
or pseudolyrula, are present in an even wider range of taxa.
This raises a number of questions: how the term and cha-
racter trait of the lyrula may best be dened; how the lyrula
is formed during zooid ontogeny and where it is positioned;
and, above all, what function(s) the lyrula and other apertu-
ral structures may have.
The idea for this paper developed from the inability
of the present authors to answer any of these questions im-
mediately, partly because there is contradictory information
on certain aspects of the lyrula, such as its position relative
to the operculum. Confronting a number of younger and
even several eminent bryozoologists with the question on
what its function may be revealed that we were not the only
ones lacking this knowledge. Having developed a working
ISSN 2035-7699
© Museo delle Scienze, Trento 2014
What, if anything, is a lyrula?
Björn BERNING1,*, Kevin J. TILBROOK2 & Andrew N. OSTROVSKY3,4
1 Upper Austrian State Museum, Geoscience Collections, Welser Str. 20, 4060 Leonding, Austria
2 Museum of Tropical Queensland, 70-102 Flinders Street, Townsville, QLD 4810, Australia
3 Department of Palaeontology, Faculty of Earth Sciences, Geography and Astronomy, Geozentrum, University of Vienna,
1090 Vienna, Austria
4 Department of Invertebrate Zoology, Faculty of Biology, St. Petersburg State University, Universitetskaja nab. 7/9, 199034
St. Petersburg, Russia
* Corresponding author e-mail: b.berning@landesmuseum.at
SUMMARY - What, if anything, is a lyrula? - Although the lyrula is a character trait that is often used in taxonomic descriptions of cer-
tain ascophoran bryozoan taxa, its function as well as its position relative to the operculum remained ill-dened ever since the term was
introduced in the late 19th century. The presence of a variety of other oricial and peristomial structures of different shape and position
has added to the terminological confusion. Here we show that, in contrast to the condyles that are positioned at the (disto)lateral orice
margins below the level of the operculum, all structures at the proximal margin are situated above the operculum, and that they all serve
the same ultimate function: to partition the orice and peristome into a distal part that is occupied by the tentacles, and a proximal part
through which water can freely ow into and out of the ascus during tentacle protrusion and retraction, respectively. Finally, we provide
amended denitions of the terms lyrula, central and lateral denticle, as well as peristomial groove and ridge.
RIASSUNTO - Cos’è una lirula, se è qualcosa? - Sebbene la lirula sia un carattere spesso usato nella descrizione tassonomica di certi
taxa di briozoi ascofori, la sua funzione così come la sua posizione rispetto all’opercolo, sono rimasti mal deniti n da quando il termine
fu introdotto nel tardo 19° secolo. La presenza di una varietà di altre strutture oriciali e peristomiali di differente forma e posizione si è
aggiunta alla confusione terminologica. Nel presente lavoro si mostra come, in contrasto ai condili che sono posizionati ai margini (disto)
laterali dell’oricio, sotto il livello dell’opercolo, tutte le strutture che si trovano lungo il margine prossimale siano situate sopra l’opercolo,
e come esse servano tutte a svolgere un’unica funzione: separare l’oricio e il peristoma in una parte distale, occupata dai tentacoli, e una
prossimale attraverso cui l’acqua può uire liberamente verso e dall’asco, rispettivamente durante la protrusione e la ritrazione dei tenta-
coli. Inne, vengono fornite denizioni emendate dei termini lirula, denticoli centrali e laterali così come di solco e cresta peristomiale.
Key words: Bryozoa, functional morphology, lyrula, orice
Parole chiave: Briozoi, morfologia funzionale, lyrula, oriciume
Bryozoan Studies 2013 - Antonietta Rosso, Patrick N. Wyse Jackson & Joanne Porter (eds)
22 Berning et al. What is a lyrula?
hypothesis of our own, we searched through the late 19th
and 20th century literature for further clues. It then became
clear that the answers to these questions were already out
there. Fortunately (for us at least), they are the same as tho-
se that we had come up with.
2. HISTORICAL BACKGROUND
Previously simply referred to as a tooth or denticle
(e.g. Busk 1854: 75), the term lyrula (diminutive of the
Greek lyra = lyre) was established by Jullien (1888: 52)
in the description of orice characters when introducing
the family Smittidae [sic]: “Orice suborbiculaire dont la
lèvre inférieure est entière et porte une dent médiane, lyrule
(lyrula), située au-dessus de l’opercule []”. He was thus
very specic in stating that the median tooth, the lyrula, was
situated above the operculum. According to the glossary
provided by Bassler (1953: G12) in the Treatise on Inver-
tebrate Paleontology, the lyrula is a “Median, commonly
anvil-shaped tooth on proximal edge of orice, located be-
low the mucro []”, whereas the mucro was considered to
be a “Rounded or spinelike projection at proximal edge of
peristome in some cheilostomes (Ascophora), located on
proximal side of lyrule []”. It is a rather vague denition
and may imply that the lyrula is only present in species
with a peristome that bears a mucro. Arguably, in recent
times the denition given in Hayward & Ryland’s (1979:
300) Synopsis of the British Fauna had the greatest impact
owing to its wide use, and also because their denition for-
med the basis of the glossary of terms used on the Bryozoa
Homepage (Bock 2013): “Subopercular median tooth, of-
ten anvil-shaped, on the proximal side of the orice in some
Cheilostomata”. Thus, in contrast to Jullien’s original state-
ment, the lyrula was here supposed to be positioned below
the operculum. In Zabala & Maluquer’s (1988: 16) Illustra-
ted Keys for the Classication of Mediterranean Bryozoa,
as well as in the 2nd edition of the Synopsis (Hayward &
Ryland 1999: 391), the positional specier was deleted and
no indication as to the placement of the lyrula relative to
the operculum was given. Accordingly, in recent times it
has been unclear whether the lyrula is positioned above or
below the operculum, or whether its position is taxon-de-
pendent, although its exact position has occasionally been
mentioned (e.g. Soule & Soule 1973: 375).
Owing to its supposed position below the opercu-
lum, the lyrula was occasionally thought of as being so-
mehow involved as a hinge of the operculum. Yet even if
condyles are absent, the hypothetical presence of a subo-
percular lyrula would necessitate the existence of a cen-
tral notch in the operculum to allow inward tilting of the
proximolateral parts of the operculum during opening.
We are not aware that such a distinctly shaped operculum
exists. More importantly however, in ascophorans with um-
bonuloid and lepralioid frontal shields, the lyrula simply
cannot be positioned beneath the operculum for structural
reasons. The proximal opercular margin is continuous with
the membrane of the ascus, which continues underneath
the frontal shield that, in turn, forms the proximal apertural
margin, including the lyrula. All species with a lyrula in
the Escharellidae, Romancheinidae, Smittinidae and Petra-
liellidae that were sectioned by one of us (ANO) showed
this particular structure of the proximal orice margin and
frontal shield. Thus, as originally and correctly dened by
Jullien (1888), the lyrula is always positioned above the
operculum (Fig. 2; Soule & Soule 1972: g. 16).
What, then, is the function of the lyrula? In most
cases it was thought of as protecting the orice. Levinsen
(1909: 43) noted that “[] its frequent presence in species
which have a membranous or slightly calcied operculum,
shows that it must be regarded as a protective formation”.
Bassler (1953: G217) also stated that the Phyllactellipori-
Fig. 1 - An archetypical lyrula in an early astogenetic zooid of Es-
charella cf. variolosa (Johnston, 1838) from the Mediterranean Sea.
Fig. 1 - Archetipo di lirula in uno zooide a stadio astogenetico
precoce di Escharella cf. variolosa (Johnston, 1838) del Mar Me-
diterraneo.
Fig. 2 - Parasmittina sp. from the Red Sea with the operculum in
situ; the lyrula (lower centre) is produced by gymnocystal calci-
cation during formation of the orice margin and is positioned
directly above the proximomedian opercular edge.
Fig. 2 - Parasmittina sp. del Mar Rosso con l’opercolo in situ; la
lirula (centro, in basso) è prodotta da calcicazione della gimno-
cisti durante la formazione del margine dell’oricio ed è situata
immediatamente sopra il bordo opercolare prossimo-mediano.
23Studi Trent. Sci. Nat., 94 (2014): 21-28
dae have a [] well-developed peristomie bearing a pro-
tective organ (lyrula, mucron) for the compensatrix”.
However, if a predator can get past a calcied peri-
stome or long oral spines and, if present, a sclerotised oper-
culum, it is rather unlikely to be stopped by a comparatively
delicate structure such as the lyrula and/or any other apertu-
ral dentition or mucro. We do not want to entirely rule out
a protective function, particularly if the lyrula is large and
covering a large part of the orice (Fig. 3). In this case, the
constriction of the orice by the lyrula is very likely to im-
pede the penetration of the feeding organs of certain preda-
tors. Also, it has been pointed out (Waters 1889; Levinsen
1909; Harmer 1957) that many species with a lyrula in the
families Lepraliellidae, Smittinidae and Petraliellidae have
a weakly sclerotized, membranous operculum. Neverthe-
less, we believe the main purpose of the lyrula and similar
oricial and peristomial structures is a different one.
3. LYRULAE, PERISTOMIAL DENTICLES
AND SUBORAL MUCROS: DIFFERENT
STRUCTURES WITH A SIMILAR FUNCTION
Besides the typical anvil-shaped lyrula, a range of
other structures may occur at the proximal margin of, and
approximately level with, the primary orice in a great
number of unrelated umbonulomorph and lepraliomorph
taxa. Owing to their different shape and smaller size, the-
se have usually been termed teeth or denticles, such as in
the lepraliomorph genus Mucropetraliella (Fig. 4A) and in
the umbonulomorph Celleporaria (Fig. 4B). When revising
the Petraliellidae, Tilbrook & Cook (2005) distinguished
between supraopercular central and lateral denticles althou-
gh some of the central denticles imaged (e.g. their gures
9A, 11A) are, owing to their shape and position, lyrulae
by denition (i.e. anvil- or lyre-shaped). An unequivocal
attribution is less obvious in cases where there are up to
six small denticles of equal size along the orice margin as
in Petraliella dentilabris (Ortmann, 1892) (see Tilbrook &
Cook 2005: g. 5A). Moreover, there may be strong intra-
colonial variability in lyrula and denticle shape and num-
ber. For instance, in a single colony of Celleporaria aperta
(Hincks, 1882), a central lyrula is present if there are three
denticles whereas a pseudosinus is formed when there are
only two denticles (Fig. 4C).
Owing to the variability in number, position and
morphology, the lyrula and other peristomial structures
(and even the condyles previously) have thus occasionally
been treated as synonymous. In fact, even Jullien (1888:
55) confused matters by regarding the peristomial teeth
in the genus Exochella, which are situated well above the
primary orice and level with the median denticle, as iden-
tical with the cardelles (= condyles) in the Smittidae. In
bleached specimens it may indeed occasionally be difcult
to distinguish condyles from lateral denticles, particularly
if the condyles are indistinct and the lateral denticles are
situated slightly below the central one(s), as for example in
some species of the Petraliellidae (Fig. 4A; see also Stach
1936; Harmer 1957: 706-708). In situations such as these
an examination of the orice and frontal shield from below
may be necessary to shed light on their exact position (abo-
ve or below the operculum) and origin (distolateral margins
vs. proximal orice margin).
The function of the lyrula and supraopercular den-
ticles in the living zooid was rst proposed by Harmer
(1957: 693), although he did not explicitly mention the
lyrula in this regard (but see below). It is also apparent
from presumably the rst and only sketch of a lyrula in
conjunction with an open operculum drawn by Mary Ro-
gick, which was published in the same year (Rogick 1957:
pl. 1, g. 5). The image, which is reproduced here (Fig. 5),
shows that the operculum is stopped by the distal margin of
the lyrula in an approximately vertical position. Whereas
Rogick (1957: 1) cited Basslers notion that the lyrula is
a protective organ, Harmer (1957: 693) stated that the su-
praopercular lateral denticles [] restrict the movement
of the opercula, in order to provide for the free passage of
water through the lateral sinuses”. Harmer was well aware
that the lyrula was positioned above the operculum, as is
evident from the statement on p. 719 (“[] the lyrula and
suboral avicularium are well raised above the depressed
frontal membrane, which is continuous with the base of the
operculum []”), and referred to it as such or as a central
denticle. Unfortunately, Harmer (1957) did not provide a
glossary in which he could have claried his own views on
the true position and function of the lyrula.
Thus, on both sides of the lyrula (and in between
the lateral denticles, if these are present), space remains
free at the proximal margin of the primary orice through
which water can ow into the ascus while the tentacles are
protruded, and out of it when they are retracted. Structures
that are functionally analogous to the notches lateral to the
lyrula and between other apertural dentitions have evolved
in other cheilostome taxa in the form of an oricial sinus
and frontal shield ascopore.
Looked at from this perspective, all other structures
at the proximal orice margin described above (Fig. 4A-
C) also seem to enable free water ux as they prevent the
operculum from obstructing the proximal part of the ori-
ce, and, at the same time, provide pseudosinuses for wa-
ter compensation. There are other aberrant structures that
Fig. 3 - The extremely large lyrula in Parasmittina tropica (Waters,
1909) from the Red Sea probably also has a protective function.
Fig. 3 - La lirula estremamente grande di Parasmittina tropica (Wa-
ters, 1909) del Mar Rosso probabilmente ha anche una funzione
protettiva.
24 Berning et al. What is a lyrula?
may full the same ‘doorstop’-like function. For instance,
the suboral mucro in Hippomenella mucronelliformis (Wa -
ters, 1899) arches over the orice, and is positioned well
in reach of the operculum (Fig. 6A). The same may apply
to the single lateral denticle in Drepanophora species (Fig.
6B; see also Gordon 2000: g. 7), and to the mucro-like
prolongation towards the orice of the suboral avicularian
cystid, as for instance in certain species of Rhynchozoon
(Fig. 6C) or Smittoidea (Harmer 1902: 304).
In species with a relatively well-developed peristo-
me it can commonly be observed that additional denticles
are present along the proximal peristomial margin, even
if a lyrula is present just above the primary orice. These
structures, which are not situated directly at the level of
the orice but higher up in the peristome, i.e. at some ver-
tical distance from the operculum, are unable to arrest the
operculum but full the same general function of keeping
the proximal part of the aperture free of the tentacles (Che-
etham et al. 2007: 6). Examples are found in the genera
Metrarabdotos (Fig. 7A) and Parasmittina (Fig. 7B).
It should be stressed that in the absence of informa-
tion on the precise location and size of the operculum, i.e. in
bleached or fossil specimens, it may sometimes be difcult
to differentiate between a lyrula sensu strictu and a superpo-
sitioned peristomial denticle. Functionally identical structu-
res are indentations in the terminal peristomial aperture, as
in Saevitella peristomata (Waters, 1899) (see Berning 2012:
g. 17) or in the genus Escharoides (Fig. 7C).
Species with an extremely elongated peristome may
not only produce singular lyrulae or denticles but grooves
(Fig. 8A) or ridges (Fig. 8B), which sometimes extend
along the entire length of the peristome. Again, rather than
fullling defensive tasks, they also seem to serve the pur-
pose of keeping the tentacles free from the proximal mar-
gin. Particularly in species with a well-developed peristo-
me, the presence of such discrete passageways prevents
the water from interacting with the tentacles, and therefore
from creating turbulent ow and increased friction at the
polypide surface, which would be especially problematic
during rapid tentacle retraction and coeval escape of water.
Owing to the separation of the orice into a distal part that
is in its entirety occupied by the tentacles when protruding
and retracting, and a proximal area for waterow, the peri-
stome diameter can be kept at a minimum.
Indirect evidence supporting the tasks of the lyrula,
denticles and peristomial ridges/grooves is also offered by
species having long tubular peristomes that lack any inte-
rior structures, such as those in the genera Siphonicytara
or Margaretta (Fig. 9A). In these taxa, a partitioning of the
peristome is unnecessary because waterow takes place via
an ascopore. Similarly, lateral or proximal spiramina in the
peristome (which may occasionally terminate rather cen-
trally on the frontal shield, however) as in e.g. Tessarado-
ma (Fig. 9B; see also Gordon 2000: gs 17-20), Adeonella,
the Porinidae, and most taxa of the Gigantoporidae (Fig.
9C), full the same general function of water compensa-
tion, with the difference that the water is rst led into the
space above the orice at the base of the peristome, and
only then into the ascus. In exechonellid species with long
Fig. 4 - Oricial denticles. A. Central and lateral denticles in Mucropetraliella bennetti (Livingstone, 1926) from Heron Island (Great Bar-
rier Reef); note the indistinct condyles (arrows) at the distolateral orice margins. B. Two zooids of Celleporaria cf. aperta (Hincks, 1882)
from Oman with one central and two lateral denticles. C. Another zooid of C. cf. aperta in which the left of the lateral denticles have fused
with the central denticle to produce a single pseudosinus.
Fig. 4 - Denticoli oriciali. A. Denticoli centrali e laterali in Mucropetraliella bennetti (Livingstone, 1926) dell’Isola di Heron (Grande
Barriera); notare i condili indistinti (frecce) ai margini disto-laterali dell’oricio. B. Due zooidi di Celleporaria cf. aperta (Hincks, 1882)
dall’Oman con un denticolo centrale e due laterali. C. Un altro zooide di C. cf. aperta in cui il denticolo laterale sinistro è fuso con quello
centrale a formare un singolo pseudosinus.
Fig. 5 - View of an opened orice of Lageneschara lyrulata (Cal-
vet, 1909) from the inside, showing an operculum (O) that is
hinged on condyles (C) and stopped in a vertical position by the
lyrula (L) (modied after Rogick 1957).
Fig. 5 - Vista dall’interno di un oricio aperto di Lageneschara
lyrulata (Calvet, 1909), che mostra un opercolo (O) incernierato
sui condili (C) e bloccato in posizione verticale dalla lirula (L)
(modicato da Rogick 1957).
25Studi Trent. Sci. Nat., 94 (2014): 21-28
peristomes the water ows directly underneath the frontal
shield via foramina. Thus, in species that have other means
for water compensation, the formation of prominent struc-
tures in, and a partitioning of, the peristome is unnecessary.
To conclude, despite their wide range in size, posi-
tion and morphology, all supraopercular structures at the
proximal orice margin or in the peristome presumably
have the same overall function. However, a great inter-
specic, intraspecic and occasionally even intracolonial
variability in lyrula and denticle shape, size and number
suggests that their morphology is not of utmost importan-
ce. In fact, the lyrula and lateral or other denticles are not
indispensable, as is evident for example in the genus Cel-
leporaria in which species occur that lack any structures
at the proximal orice margin [on the Bryozoa Homepa-
ge, see e.g. Celleporaria agglutinans (Hutton, 1873) and
Celleporaria bispinata (Busk, 1854)]. Species in the genus
Pseudoustra (see Kuklinski et al. 2013) show an entire
Fig. 6 - Various structures at the proximal apertural margin that may allow for an unobstructed waterow during tentacle protrusion and
retraction, independent of the presence of a lyrula. A. A suboral umbo (arrow) overarching the orice that forms during ontogeny from the
distal frontal shield in Hippomenella mucronelliformis (Waters, 1899) from Madeira (photo: M.E. Spencer Jones). B. An asymmetrical
lateral denticle typical of Drepanophora spp. [the imaged specimen is Drepanophora tuberculata (Osburn, 1914) from Heron Island]. C.
The avicularian cystid of Rhynchozoon sp. from the Red Sea forming a mucro-like prolongation towards the orice.
Fig. 6 - Varie strutture del margine prossimale dell’apertura che consentono un usso d’acqua libero durante la protrusione e retrazione
dei tentacoli, indipendentemente dalla presenza di una lirula. A. Un umbone suborale (freccia) proiettato sull’oricio; si forma durante
l’ontogenesi dalla parte distale dello scudo frontale in Hippomenella mucronelliformis (Waters, 1899) da Madeira (foto: M.E. Spencer
Jones). B. Un denticolo laterale asimmetrico tipico di Drepanophora spp. [l’esemplare gurato è Drepanophora tuberculata (Osburn,
1914) dell’Isola di Heron]. C. Il cistide dell’aviculario di Rhynchozoon sp. dal Mar Rosso che forma una prominenza simile a un mucrone
proiettato sull’oricio.
Fig. 7 - Peristomial denticles. A. Interior view into the peristome of the fossil Metrarabdotos nehybai (Zágorsek et al., 2011); in addition
to the lower-level lateral and central denticles (which may have been in reach of the operculum), another pair of peristomial denticles is
present at a higher level, at which the two lower pseudosinuses merge into a single central one (photo: K. Zágorsek). B. Lateral peristomial
denticles in Parasmittina spondylicola Harmelin et al., 2009 from the Red Sea. C. Lateral and central peristomial denticles in Escharoides
longirostris Dumont, 1981 from the Red Sea.
Fig. 7 - Denticoli peristomiali. A. Vista interna del peristoma della specie fossile Metrarabdotos nehybai (Zágorsek et al., 2011); oltre ai
denticoli centrale e laterali situati a livello basso (che possono essere stati a contatto con l’opercolo), è presente un altro paio di denticoli
peristomiali situati a un livello più alto, in corrispondenza dei quali i due pseudoseni inferiori si fondono in un unico seno centrale (foto:
K. Zágorsek). B. Denticoli peristomiali laterali in Parasmittina spondylicola Harmelin et al., 2009 del Mar Rosso. C. Denticoli peristo-
miali laterali e centrali in Escharoides longirostris Dumont, 1981 del Mar Rosso.
26 Berning et al. What is a lyrula?
series of different orice morphologies: from a perfect
lyrula to a tiny hump and a straight proximal margin, to
the presence of a sinus (Fig. 9). Why some species have a
well-developed lyrula and lateral denticles whereas other
congeneric species exist without them remains yet to be in-
vestigated. Thus this notion, along with similar statements
made by many previous workers (e.g. Levinsen 1909; Har-
mer 1957), suggests that the character trait ‘lyrula’ should
be used with caution in interspecic and higher level sy-
stematics.
4. TOWARDS A DEFINITION OF ‘LYRULA
AND ‘DENTICLE’
First and foremost, the lyrula and all other structures
at the proximal orice and peristome margin are, in contrast
to the condyles that originate from the distolateral orice
margins, positioned above the operculum. Thus, the distin-
ction between supraopercular denticles (sensu Tilbrook &
Cook 2005) on the one hand, and a subopercular lyrula (sensu
Hayward & Ryland 1979) on the other (see also the entries
Fig. 8 - Peristomial grooves and ridges. A. The proximal groove in the peristome of Parasmittina aff. spondylicola Harmelin et al., 2009
from the Red Sea is bordered by peristomial ridges that are formed by fusion of several superimposed lateral denticles. B. A central ridge
in the peristome of Teuchopora edwardsi (Jullien, 1883) from the north-east Atlantic.
Fig. 8 - Solchi e creste peristomiali. A. Il solco prossimale nel peristoma di Parasmittina aff. spondylicola Harmelin et al., 2009 del Mar
Rosso è delimitato da creste peristomiali formate dalla fusione di diversi denticoli laterali successivi. B. Una cresta centrale nel peristoma
di Teuchopora edwardsi (Jullien, 1883) dell’Atlantico nord-orientale.
Fig. 9 - Means of water compensation in species with peristomes that lack any prominent internal structures. A. Margaretta tenuis Harmer,
1957 from the Red Sea in which water compensation takes place via the ascopore. B. In Tessaradoma sp. from the Great Meteor Bank
the in- and outowing water is led into the space above the orice via the frontal spiramen (photo: B. Bader). C. In Gigantopora cf. pupa
(Jullien in Jullien & Calvet, 1903) from the Red Sea the water is led through a large window in the peristome.
Fig. 9 - Modalità per la compensazione dell’acqua in specie con peristoma senza strutture interne rilevate. A. Margaretta tenuis Harmer,
1957 del Mar Rosso in cui la compensazione dell’acqua avviene attraverso l’ascoporo. B. In Tessaradoma sp. del Banco Great Meteor
l’acqua uisce verso l’interno e verso l’esterno nello spazio sopra l’oricio attraverso lo spiramen frontale (foto: B. Bader). C. In Gigan-
topora cf. pupa (Jullien in Jullien & Calvet, 1903) del Mar Rosso l’acqua passa attraverso un’ampia nestra nel peristoma.
27Studi Trent. Sci. Nat., 94 (2014): 21-28
of ‘lyrula’ and ‘lateral denticle’ in the glossary on the Bryo-
zoa Homepage), is unjustied - both are above the level of the
operculum in the primary orice and are inferred to have the
functional roles outlined above. The vertical distance of denti-
cles from the orice, however, varies distinctly, from directly
above the operculum to the terminal peristomial aperture.
With regard to the origin of these structures, there also
seems to be no substantial difference between a central lyrula
or denticle and at least some of the lateral denticles (as for
example those seen in the Petraliellidae, cf. Tilbrook & Cook
2005). Moreover, even within a genus, the precise mode of
formation may differ (Soule & Soule 1972: 259). In both um-
bonulomorphs and lepraliomorphs they emerge from the gym-
nocystal calcication that forms either the proximal orice
margin (Soule & Soule 1972: g. 14), an outgrowth from the
vertical extension of the peristome, and/or, in some occasions,
the prolongation of a suboral avicularian cystid. As a structure
that may serve a similar function, suboral umbos may be pro-
duced by the distal part of the frontal shield during ontogeny
(e.g. Hippomenella), the surface of which may partly or enti-
rely be composed of skeleton with a cryptocystal fabric.
As to their function, some oricial structures may pro-
tect the bryozoan from predators that wish to gain access to
the polypide via the orice (cf. Berning 2008); in the case of
robust and heavily calcied structures (Fig. 3) this may often
be a major function. However, as most lyrulae and denticles
are relatively gracile, their function of partitioning the orice
for unobstructed waterow seems to be more important. This
hypothesis is corroborated by the presence of lyrulae even in
species with long, tubular and thickly calcied peristomes,
and by the absence of peristomial denticles from species that
have other means of water compensation, such as an ascopore
or peristomial/frontal spiramina and foramina.
Thus, a range of structures differing in shape and posi-
tion above the orice have the common overall task to facilita-
te unobstructed waterow. We therefore suggest not to restrict
the denition to a single term but to provide several context-
specic terms. Hence, all supraopercular oricial and peristo-
mial structures may be referred to the superordinate character
trait ‘denticle’, with speciers as to their position above the
orice if known. A lyre- or anvil-shaped central oricial denti-
cle may still be termed a ‘lyrula’, thereby implying its general
morphology. A lyrula may theoretically also occur higher up
in the peristome, in which case it would be termed a peristo-
mial lyrula. We suggest using the following terms:
denticle: any prominent structure in the orice or peristome
occurring above the operculum;
oricial denticle (lateral or central): structure within reach
of the operculum, with the ability to arrest it in a near-
vertical position;
peristomial denticle (lateral or central): structure in the pe-
ristome to prevent the tentacles from obstructing the
proximal peristomial margin;
lyrula: central denticle of lyre- or anvil-shape;
peristomial ridge/groove: longitudinal structures along the
proximal peristomial margin (occasionally a combina-
tion of both).
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
We would like to thank Beate Bader, Piotr Kuk-
linski, Mary Spencer Jones and Kamil Zágorsek for pro-
viding SEM images of several species, and a number of
bryozoologists for discussions on the lyrula. Joanne Porter
and two anonymous reviewers are thanked for comments
on the manuscript. ANO is grateful to the Russian Foun-
dation for Basic Research (RFFI) (grants 13-04-00758-a
and 13-04-10145-k) for funding. KJT acknowledges the
nancial support of the following organisations: Census of
Coral Reefs (CReefs), BHP Billiton, and the Queensland
Museum Foundation.
REFERENCES
Andersson K.A., 1902 - Bryozoen, während der schwedischen
Expeditionen 1898 und 1899 unter Leitung von Professor
A.G. Nathorst und 1900 unter Leitung von Conservator G.
Kolthoff gesammelt. Zool Jahrb, Abt Syst, Geogr, Biol der
Fig. 10 - Intrageneric variability in orice morphology in Pseudoustra, or: how dispensable is a lyrula? A. Pseudoustra sinuosa (An-
dersson 1902) with a perfect lyrula. B. Pseudoustra minima Hayward, 1994 with a tiny, blunt, median denticle. C. Pseudoustra virgula
Hayward, 1994 with a straight proximal margin. D. Pseudoustra anderssoni Kluge, 1946 with a sinus (all photos: P. Kuklinski).
Fig. 10 - Variabilità intragenerica nella morfologia dell’orico in Pseudoustra, o: quanto è superua una lyrula? A. Pseudoustra si-
nuosa (Andersson, 1902) con una perfetta lirula. B. Pseudoustra minima Hayward, 1994 con un minuscolo dente mediano smussato. C.
Pseudoustra virgula Hayward, 1994 con un margine prossimale diritto. D. Pseudoustra anderssoni Kluge, 1946 con un seno prossimale
(tutte le foto: P. Kuklinski).
28 Berning et al. What is a lyrula?
Tiere, 15: 537-560.
Bassler R.S. (ed.), 1953 - Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology.
Part G. Bryozoa. Geological Society of America and Univer-
sity of Kansas Press, Boulder & Lawrence, 253 pp.
Berning B., 2008 - Evidence for sublethal predation and regen-
eration among living and fossil ascophoran bryozoans. In:
Hageman S.J., Key M.M. & Winston J.E. (eds), Bryozoan
Studies 2007. Virginia Mus. Nat. Hist. Spec. Pub., 15: 1-7.
Berning B., 2012 - Taxonomic notes on some Cheilostomata
(Bryozoa) from Madeira. Zootaxa, 3236: 36-54.
Bock P.E., 2013 - http://www.bryozoa.net/glossary.html#L (ac-
cessed 25.04.2013).
Busk G., 1854 - Catalogue of Marine Polyzoa in the Collection of
the British Museum. Part II. Cheilostomata (Part). Trustees
of the British Museum, London, 120 pp.
Calvet L., 1909 - Bryozoaires. In: Expédition Antarctique Fran-
caise (1903-1905), commandée par le Dr Jean Charcot.
Masson et Cie, Paris: 1-49.
Canu F. & Bassler R.S., 1929 - Bryozoa of the Philippine region.
Bull. U.S. Nat. Mus., 100: 1-685.
Cheetham A.H., Sanner J. & Jackson J.B.C., 2007 - Metrarabdo-
tos and related genera (Bryozoa: Cheilostomata) in the late
Paleogene and Neogene of tropical America. J. Paleontol.,
81 Supplement 1: 1-91.
Dumont J.P.C., 1981 - A report on the cheilostome Bryozoa of the
Sudanese Red Sea. J. Nat. Hist., 15: 623-637.
Gordon D.P., 2000 - Towards a phylogeny of cheilostomes -
morphological models of frontal wall/shield evolution. In:
Herrera Cubilla A. & Jackson J.B.C. (eds), Proceedings of
the 11th International Bryozoology Association Conference.
Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute, Balboa, Republic
of Panama: 17-37.
Harmelin J.-G., Bitar G. & Zibrowius H., 2009 - Smittinidae
(Bryozoa, Cheilostomata) from coastal habitats of Lebanon
(Mediterranean Sea), including new and non-indigenous
species. Zoosystema, 31 (1): 163-187.
Harmer S.F., 1902 - On the morphology of the Cheilostomata.
Quart. J. Microsc. Sci., 46: 263-350.
Harmer S.F., 1957 - The Polyzoa of the Siboga Expedition, Part IV.
Cheilostomata, Ascophora. II. Siboga Exped., 28d: 641-1147.
Hayward P.J., 1994 - New species and new records of cheilos-
tomatous Bryozoa from the Faroe Islands, collected by BIO-
FAR. Sarsia, 79: 181-206.
Hayward P.J. & Ryland J.S., 1979 - British Ascophoran Bryozo-
ans. In: Kermack D.M. & Barnes R.S.K. (eds), Synopses of
the British Fauna (New Series), No. 14. Academic Press,
London, 312 pp.
Hayward P.J. & Ryland J.S., 1999 - Cheilostomatous Bryozoa.
Part 2. Hippothooidea - Celleporoidea. In: Barnes R.S.K.
& Crothers J.H. (eds), Synopses of the British Fauna (New
Series), No. 14 (Second Edition). Field Studies Council,
Shrewsbury, 416 pp.
Hincks T., 1882 - Contributions towards a general history of the
marine Polyzoa. Part IX. Foreign Cheilostomata (miscella-
neous). Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist. (ser. 5), 9: 116-127.
Hutton F.W., 1873 - Polyzoa. In: Hutton F.W. (ed.), Catalogue of
the marine Mollusca of New Zealand, with diagnoses of spe-
cies. Government Printer, Wellington: 87-104.
Johnston G., 1838 - A History of the British Zoophytes. W.H.
Lizars, Edinburgh, 341 pp.
Jullien J., 1883 - Dragages du Travailleur - Bryozoaires. Espèces
draguées dans l’Océan Atlantique en 1881. Bull. Soc. Zool.
France, 7: 497-529.
Jullien J., 1888 - Bryozoaires. Miss. Sci. du Cap Horn 1882-1883,
6: 1-92.
Jullien J. & Calvet L., 1903 - Bryozoaires provenant des cam-
pagnes de l’Hirondelle (1886-1888). Rés. Camp. Sci. du
Prince de Monaco, 23: 1-188.
Kluge G.A., 1946 - New and little-known Bryozoa from Lodovity
Ocean. In: Bujnickovo V.H. (ed.), Trudy dreifuyshchei eks-
pediti glavesmorputi na ledokolnom parachodie ‘‘G.Sedov’’
1937-1940. Vol. 3. Izdatielstvo Glovsjevmorputi, Moscow:
194-223. (in Russian)
Kuklinski P., Taylor P.D., Denisenko N.V. & Berning B., 2013
- Atlantic origin of the Arctic biota? Evidence from phyloge-
netic and biogeographical analysis of the cheilostome bryo-
zoan genus Pseudoustra. PLoS ONE, 8 (3): e59152.
Levinsen G.M.R., 1909 - Morphological and Systematic Studies
on the Cheilostomatous Bryozoa. Nationale Forfatteres For-
lag, Copenhagen, 364 pp.
Livingstone A.A., 1926 - Studies on Australian Bryozoa. No. 3.
Rec. Australian Mus., 15: 79-99.
Ortmann A., 1892 - Die Korallenriffe von Dar es Salaam und Um-
gegend. Zool. Jb., Abth. f. Syst., Geogr. u. Biol., 6: 631-670.
Osburn R.C., 1914 - The Bryozoa of the Tortugas Islands, Florida.
Publ. Carnegie Inst. Washington, 182: 183-222.
Rogick M.D., 1957 - Studies on marine Bryozoa. IX. Phylactel-
lipora. Ohio J. Sci., 57: 1-9.
Soule D.F. & Soule J.D., 1972 - Ancestrulae and body wall mor-
phogenesis of some Hawaiian and eastern Pacic Smittinidae
(Bryozoa). Trans. American Microsc. Soc., 91 (3): 251-260.
Soule D.F. & Soule J.D., 1973 - Morphology and speciation of
Hawaiian and eastern Pacic Smittinidae (Bryozoa, Ecto-
procta). Bull. American Mus. Nat. Hist., 152: 365-440.
Stach L.W., 1936 - Studies on Recent Petraliidae (Bryozoa). Rec.
Australian Mus., 19: 355-379.
Tilbrook K.J. & Cook P.L., 2005 - Petraliellidae Harmer, 1957
(Bryozoa: Cheilostomata) from Queensland, Australia. Sy-
stem. Biodiv., 2 (3): 319-339.
Waters A.W., 1889 - Bryozoa from New South Wales, North Au-
stralia, etc. Part 4. Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist. (ser. 6), 4: 1-24.
Waters A.W., 1899 - Bryozoa from Madeira. J. Royal Microsc.
Soc., 1899: 6-16.
Waters A.W., 1909 - Reports on the marine biology of the Sudane-
se Red Sea, from collections made by Cyril Crossland, M.A.,
B.Sc., F.Z.S.; together with collections made in the Red Sea
by Dr. R. Hartmeyer. XII. The Bryozoa. Part I. Cheilostoma-
ta. J. Linn. Soc. (Zool.), 31: 123-181.
Zabala M. & Maluquer P., 1988 - Illustrated Keys for the Classi-
cation of Mediterranean Bryozoa. Ajuntament de Barcelona,
Barcelona, 294 pp.
Zágorsek K., Ostrovsky A.N. & Vávra N., 2011 - The new chei-
lostome bryozoan Metrarabdotos nehybai from the Middle
Miocene of Moravia (Czech Republic): palaeofaunistic, ta-
xonomic and ontogenetic aspects. N. Jb. Geol. Paläontol.,
Abh., 260 (1): 21-31.
... The anvil-shaped lyrula typical of most Escharella species is reduced to a triangular denticle in both E. praealta and Escharella lopezfei n. sp., which may, however, have the same function as a typical smittinid lyrula (cf. Berning et al. 2014). The new species is distinguished by the lack of an umbo proximal to the orifice and on the proximal ooecium margins, and in having 8-9 oral spines, whereas E. praealta has only six spines. ...
... Although its shape differs drastically from the true smittinid lyrula by forming a broad, star-shaped and vertically aligned structure with a flat distal surface, it may fulfil the same function. It seems to be in reach of the opened operculum to keep it and the tentacles from obstructing the proximal peristomial margin during tentacle eversion and, particularly, retraction (see Berning et al. 2014). Water compensation during this process takes place via two proximolateral channels formed by the merging of the lateral processes of the central tooth with two proximolateral peristomial ridges. ...
Full-text available
Article
Galicia Bank is a large seamount situated c. 200 km off NW Iberia with a minimum depth of 600 m. It was recently included in Natura 2000, an EU-wide network of nature protection areas. We here present the first taxonomic descriptions of cheilostome bryozoans from this bank. The specimens were collected through the Spanish project INDEMARES (during BANGAL 0811 cruise conducted in 2011) and during two previous campaigns, the French Seamount 1 in 1987 and the German Victor Hensen in 1997). Twenty-five species were found, including 12 that are new to science, while five species remain in open nomenclature. Three new cheilostome genera (Breoganipora, Galiciapora and Placidoporella) are described. A lectotype is designated for Setosella vulnerata (Busk), and Palmicellaria tenuis Calvet is transferred to the genus Porella [as Porella tenuis (Calvet) n. comb.]. Additionally, our study shows that 48–60% of the bryozoan species are endemic to Galicia Bank. The degree of endemism of the Cheilostomata is thus the highest among all orders present on this seamount.
... Our tree, however, places ascophoran taxa with lepralioid frontal shields (e.g., Powellitheca/Cyclicopora; Celleporina, Galeopsis, Osthimosia) and umbonuloid ones (Exochella; Celleporaria) in the same clades (Fig. 2), as already shown to a lesser extent in earlier extensive studies (Dick et al., 2009;Orr et al., 2019a;Waeschenbach et al., 2012). Yet, at the more derived part of our inferred tree, the structure of the frontal shield seems to be more phylogenetically informative than seemingly distinct features such as the lyrula (Berning et al., 2014). This is an anvilshaped tooth-like structure projecting from the orifice that functions in water compensation. ...
Full-text available
Article
Larger molecular phylogenies based on ever more genes are becoming commonplace with the advent of cheaper and more streamlined sequencing and bioinformatics pipelines. However, many groups of inconspicuous but no less evolutionarily or ecologically important marine invertebrates are still neglected in the quest for understanding species- and higher-level phylogenetic relationships. Here, we alleviate this issue by presenting the molecular sequences of 165 cheilostome bryozoan species from New Zealand waters. New Zealand is our geographic region of choice as its cheilostome fauna is taxonomically, functionally and ecologically diverse, and better characterized than many other such faunas in the world. Using this most taxonomically broadly-sampled and statistically-supported cheilostome phylogeny comprising 214 species, when including previously published sequences, and 17 genes (2 nuclear and 15 mitochondrial) we tested several existing systematic hypotheses based solely on morphological observations. We find that lower taxonomic level hypotheses (species and genera) are robust while our inferred trees did not reflect current higher-level systematics (family and above), illustrating a general need for the rethinking of current hypotheses. To illustrate the utility of our new phylogeny, we reconstruct the evolutionary history of frontal shields (i.e., a calcified body-wall layer in ascus-bearing cheilostomes) and ask if its presence has any bearing on the diversification rates of cheilostomes.
... Yet, at the more derived part of our inferred tree, the structure of the frontal shield seems to be more phylogenetically informative than seemingly distinct features such as the lyrula (Berning et al., 2014). This is an anvil-shaped tooth-like structure projecting from the orifice that functions in water compensation. ...
Full-text available
Preprint
Larger molecular phylogenies based on ever more genes are becoming commonplace with the advent of cheaper and more streamlined sequencing and bioinformatics pipelines. However, many groups of inconspicuous but no less evolutionarily or ecologically important marine invertebrates are still neglected in the quest for understanding species-and higher-level phylogenetic relationships. Here, we alleviate this issue by presenting the molecular sequences of 165 cheilostome bryozoan species from New Zealand waters. New Zealand is our geographic region of choice as its cheilostome fauna is taxonomically, functionally and ecologically diverse, and better characterized than many other such faunas in the world. Using this most taxonomically broadly-sampled and statistically-supported cheilostome phylogeny comprising 214 species, when including previously published sequences, we tested several existing systematic hypotheses based solely on morphological observations. We find that lower taxonomic level hypotheses (species and genera) are robust while our inferred trees did not reflect current higher-level systematics (family and above), illustrating a general need for the rethinking of current hypotheses. To illustrate the utility of our new phylogeny, we reconstruct the evolutionary history of frontal shields (i.e., a calcified body-wall layer in ascus-bearing cheilostomes) and asked if its presence has any bearing on the diversification rates of cheilostomes.
... As recently discussed by Berning et al. (2014), the dis- tal margin of a true lyrula fulfils the function of stop- ping the operculum in a vertical position during opening. We infer that the function of this denticle is to protect the bryozoan from predators trying to gain access to the polypide. ...
Article
López-Gappa, J., Pérez, L.M. & Griffin, M. February 2017. First record of a fossil selenariid bryozoan in South America. Alcheringa XX, xxx-xxx. ISSN 0311-5518. Selenariidae Busk 1854 (Bryozoa) is considered endemic to Australia and New Zealand. Here we describe a new species of Selenaria Busk 1854 from the lower Miocene Monte León Formation (Patagonia, Argentina). Selenaria lyrulata sp. nov. is characterized by autozooids with a lyrula-like, anvil-shaped cryptocystal denticle, opesiular indentations and lateral condyles, as well as avicularia with a shield of fused costae. This is the first record of a selenariid bryozoan in South America. Juan López-Gappa [lgappa@macn.gov.ar] CONICET—Museo Argentino de Ciencias Naturales. Av. Ángel Gallardo 470, C1405DJR, Ciudad Autónoma de Buenos Aires, Argentina; Leandro Martín Pérez [pilosaperez@gmail.com] and Miguel Griffin [patagonianoyster@gmail.com], CONICET—División Paleozoología Invertebrados, Museo de La Plata. Paseo del Bosque s/n, B1900FWA, La Plata, Argentina.
... Subsequently, Gordon et al. (2009) included Aimulosia in the Buffonellodidae Gordon & d'Hondt, 1997, characterized by a lepralioid frontal shield and the same external characters that are also seen in A. australis. Although Buffonellodes Strand, 1928 has a sinusoid orifice, the short rounded lyrulate structure in A. australis does not preclude a relationship with Buffonellodes and related genera- Berning et al. (2014) described how Pseudoflustra Bidenkap, 1898 includes both lyrulate and non-lyrulate species. ...
Full-text available
Article
Eight species are added to the intertidal bryozoan fauna of South Korea, all collected from the extreme northwestern part of the country at Baengnyeong Island. Five of the species (Hippothoa imperforata, Celleporella hyalina, Celleporella nodasakae, Porella donoghueorum and Suhius rubescentis) are new records. Cauloramphus dicki n. sp., Cauloramphus spencerjonesae n. sp., and Exochella cryptodontia n. sp. are new to science; Suhius n. gen. is a newly recognized genus in Bitectiporidae. The close morphological similarity of umbonuloid-shielded P. donoghueorum to Australasian and Antarctic species of lepralioid-shielded species of Aimulosia is discussed in relation to ascophoran phylogeny. The described cheilostome fauna from South Korea is herein increased to 121 species.
... Here we figured the denticulation of the rostrum of the spatulate avicularia, not visible in the Safaga Bay collection, was probably due to erosion of the specimens. Similarly, the lyrula is very variable and not a good taxonomic character (see, for example, Kuklinski et al. 2013;Berning et al. 2014). The morphology of the orifice in general, and the sinus in particular can be very variable in some species of Celleporaria, both between colonies and within the same colony; see the case of Celleporaria brunnea (Hincks, Description Colony encrusting, unilaminar or multilaminar, pale white in color. ...
Full-text available
Article
During a study investigating the identity and abundance of fouling non-indigenous species in marinas from the Madeira Archipelago, three species of bryozoans were detected on experimental settlement plates. These three species are described and figured. Celleporaria inaudita was previously only known from Vanuatu (South Pacific Ocean) and Safaga Bay (Red Sea). Parasmittina alba was previously only known from the Brazilian coast. The origin of Parasmitina multiaviculata sp. nov. is unknown. Secondary introduction by anthropogenic vectors (via hull fouling of recreational vessels) seems the most plausible explanation for the presence of these species in the Madeira Islands.
... Most genera form erect colonies with flat, dichotomous branches (e.g., Adeonella and Adeonellopsis) or are cribrate in form (e.g., Adeona), although some genera form encrusting colonies (e.g., Reptadeonella Busk, 1884). Adeonella and Adeonellopsis differ in the type of frontal shield: Adeonella has a lepralioid shield in which a spiramen leads into the space above the sinus, and a distinct primary orifice, while Adeonellopsis is thought to have an umbonuloid frontal shield and the spiramen leads into the space above the frontal membrane (Cook 1973;Lidgard 1996;Berning et al. 2014). Adeonella and Adeonellopsis are also different in the arrangement of the spiramen and frontal/suboral avicularia; Adeonella generally has a monoporous spiramen and frontal avicularia in various positions, whereas Adeonellopsis has a monoporous or multiporous spiramen, with a suboral avicularium situated distal to the spiramen, directed distally or distolaterally. ...
Full-text available
Article
Adeonid bryozoans construct antler-like erect colonies and are common in bryozoan assemblages along the Japanese Pacific coast. The taxonomy of Japanese adeonid species, however, has not been studied since their original descriptions more than 100 years ago. In the present study, adeonid specimens from historical collections and material recently collected along the Japanese coast are examined. Eight adeonid species in two genera were detected, of which Adeonella jahanai sp. nov., Adeonellopsis parvirostrum sp. nov., and Adeonellopsis toyoshioae sp. nov. are described as new species based on the branch width, size and morphology of frontal or suboral avicularia, shape and size of areolar pores, and size of the spiramen. Adeonellopsis arculifera (Canu & Bassler, 1929) is a new record for Japan. Lectotypes for Adeonellopsis japonica (Ortmann, 1890) and Adeonella sparassis (Ortmann, 1890) were selected among Ortmann’s syntypes. Most species of Adeonellopsis around Japan have a southern distribution from Sagami Bay to Okinawa, while A. japonica shows a more northern distribution from Kouchi to Otsuchi. In contrast, Adeonellopsis arculifera was collected only from southwestern Japan. A key to Japanese adeonid species is provided.
... In all cases, the avicularium is close to the proximal border of the orifice and almost perpendicular to the frontal plane. The calcified 'hood' seems to protect the opesia of the avicularium when the zooidal operculum opens, working as a door-stop, a function perhaps similar to the lyrula of other ascophorans (see Berning et al. 2014). However, in other Schizomavella species with the avicularium 34 O. REVERTER-GIL ET AL. ...
Full-text available
Article
In this paper, material belonging to the genus Schizomavella, collected along the Croatian coast of the Adriatic Sea, is revised. Nine species were identified, including five species new to science: S. cornuta, S. halimedae, S. linearis, S. mamillata, S. adriatica sp. nov.,S. mystacea sp. nov., S. rosae sp. nov., S. stanislavi sp. nov. and S. tubulata sp. nov. Previous records of Schizomavella from the Adriatic are also discussed. The checklist of Adriatic Schizomavella species is updated to 11 species; a further two species are doubtful owing to wrong previous identifications. The presence of a calcified ‘hood’ covering the opesia of the suboral avicularium is described and its function is discussed. The morphological diversity of ovicells within the genus Schizomavella is compiled and discussed.http://zoobank.org/urn:lsid:zoobank.org:pub:987D8AE0-1E02-430D-9AB5-50B77BEAF52E
... Fig. 6B). The proximal pseudosinus is formed by two distinct lateral denticles (sensu Berning et al. 2014) directed medially. ...
Full-text available
Article
Pirabasoporella gen. nov. is introduced for three new bryozoan species from the Early Miocene of the tropical western Atlantic. The genus is placed in the family Jaculinidae Zabala, a peculiar group of cheilostome bryozoans characterised by reticulate colonies formed by uni- or biserial branches that are connected by kenozooidal struts. This colonial morphology superficially resembles colonies of the Paleozoic order Fenestrata (Stenolaemata) and some Recent Cyclostomata. As jaculinid colonies are anchored to soft sediments via rhizoids, however, they differ in life habit from Paleozoic and modern fenestrate colonies, which are firmly attached to stable substrata by an encrusting base. The three new species are Pirabasoporella atalaiaensis n. sp. from the Brazilian Pirabas Formation, Pirabasoporella baitoae n. sp. from the Baitoa Formation (Dominican Republic), and Pirabasoporella chipolae n. sp. from the Floridan Chipola Formation. Their presence in the Early Miocene western Atlantic represents the earliest record of Jaculinidae, and suggests that the origin of the family, the only living species of which are known from the eastern Atlantic and Mediterranean Sea, extends well into the Paleogene. The Jaculinidae is here transferred from the lepraliomorph superfamily Schizoporelloidea Jullien to the umbonulomorph Lepralielloidea Vigneaux owing to the partly umbonuloid frontal shield and non-schizoporelloid ovicell.